Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology Science

Making Fire From Water 584

LexNaturalis writes "Gizmodo has a story out about a new product that makes fire from water. Gizmodo explains how it works: 'Ordinary tap water (preferably distilled) is supplied to the fireplace through a pipe or tank, a 220 volt electrical service then separates the hydrogen and oxygen atoms through electrolysis, the Aqueon ignites the hydrogen, and ta-dah, fire! The oxygen is then added for color and brightness, while the rest is released into the room. It doesn't require venting because it doesn't produce any harmful emittents like carbon monoxide -- just water vapor.' The manufacturer's website has more information on the science behind this new product. While splitting water to get hydrogen and oxygen is not new, this product will likely make the technology more accessible to the masses and might hopefully show that hydrogen is a more attractive fuel than petroleum-based fuels."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making Fire From Water

Comments Filter:
  • by DosBubba ( 766897 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:35PM (#13255721)
    The price tag is $49,999. They only expect to sell about five this year.
  • by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:38PM (#13255746) Journal
    Dude, you don't even need to RTFA... just look at the summary... they add oxygen to adjust the color... different amounts causes the color to change...
  • by baptiste ( 256004 ) * <mike@nosPAm.baptiste.us> on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:39PM (#13255754) Homepage Journal
    60 Amps? To run a fireplace? Yes I know it takes a lot of power to split water - but my hottub doesn't draw that much power at full blast. Much as I'd love a clean burning fire in my fireplace - drawing 8-9kW to do it is nuts
  • by taxevader ( 612422 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:42PM (#13255770)
    MINNEAPOLIS (April 06, 2005)Hearth & Home Technologies wants to inform consumers of possible safety risks associated with the continued use of 7,815 Heat & Glo(TM) brand GEM 36 and GEM 42 gas fireplaces sold since July 2002. The fireplaces can, under certain circumstances, accumulate gas prior to burner ignition, causing the glass window to shatter and presenting the risk of burns or cuts from broken glass.

    "The safety and welfare of our customers is of the utmost importance to us," said Brad Determan, president of Hearth & Home Technologies. "We are asking customers who own one of these products to turn off the gas flow to the fireplace and stop using it until we can send someone to their home and correct the problem at no expense to them."

    Determan explained that company representatives are notifying customers as quickly as possible, either directly and/or through dealers and distributors who sold the fireplaces. Heat & Glo gas fireplace owners can determine if they own a GEM 36 or GEM 42 by checking the rating plate in the bottom of the unit located on the base pan in front of the gas control or by calling Heat & Glo Customer Care at 1-800-215-5152, between the hours of 8AM to 5PM CST. If an owner has not yet been contacted, they can call Heat & Glo Customer Care at the number above or go to www.gem3642.com for more information. This safety alert also includes Gem 36 fireplace owners that recently received a replacement burner assembly.

    "We very much regret the concern and inconvenience this may cause our customers, dealers and distributors and will do all we can to make this repair process as easy as possible for them," said Determan.

    Hearth & Home Technologies is a leading provider of hearth products for the home.

    Small fragments of glass in your face, anyone?

  • Re:Fire from water? (Score:4, Informative)

    by maotx ( 765127 ) <maotxNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:43PM (#13255777)
    Well, it's more of an exothermic reaction that ends in the final balance of sodium hydroxide and hydrogen gas with a little bit of dissolved hydroxide. During the process, the sodium may become so hot that it may ignite the hydrogen gas released from the water therefore, causing fire.
  • by tek.net-ium ( 841449 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:57PM (#13255839)
    The idea is that we can use electricity to generate hydrogen, then store it. Electricity generated from a single coal power plant will produce far less pollution than gasoline from several million cars. Additionally, we're not running out of coal any time soon, and we wouldn't need to buy it from the middle east.
  • by Bester ( 27412 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:59PM (#13255856)

    Hydrogen flames are very definitely visible. Depending on the ratio of fuel to oxidant (ie oxygen) the colour of the flame can range from a very faint blue to an intense orange.

    I do a chemistry demonstration where I explode a balloon with either pure hydrogen or a stoichometric ratio of hydrogen and oxygen. The first explosion is just a puff of orange flame, the second is a bright flash of light and a tremendous explosion which has been known to shatter fluoro tubes at 10 metres.

    Charles

  • by Hal9000_sn3 ( 707590 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @11:05PM (#13255885)
    Generally, it is quite difficult to pass current through distilled (and especially deionized) water. In fact, pure water is such a good insulator that it is used in the high voltage switches (for example at electric generating plants) to suppress arcing while contacts are being opened or closed.
  • Uses 4,000 Watts? (Score:3, Informative)

    by jsimon12 ( 207119 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @11:13PM (#13255928) Homepage
    Sure it makes hydrogen but it uses something on the order of 4kw. Lets all remember you don't get something for nothing people.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05, 2005 @11:37PM (#13256033)
    Ain't no such thing as an inefficient heater. Every last watt of power turns into heat in the end, whether it gets there by running through a resistive coil or by splitting water and putting it back together again (laws of thermodynamics).

    Less efficient than a heat pump, perhaps, but that's another story.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05, 2005 @11:42PM (#13256060)
    I was surprised to learn just how much uranium a nuclear plant goes through. I'd always thought the uranium:coal mass:energy ratio was something dramatic, like a teaspoon of uranium being equivalent to a battleship full of coal. It's apparently not like that at all; the difference is only a couple of orders of magnitude.
  • by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @12:10AM (#13256174)
    It's about 20,000 to one, four orders of magnitude. Commercial reactors only have about 3% enriched fuel rods. We need to get into the right kind Thorium breeder reactors for the short haul, no material produced that is useful for weapons, and much less waste. For the long haul I think solar is the only smart way to go.
  • by Bester ( 27412 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @12:14AM (#13256186)

    Whether or not a molecule emits energy in the form of light has nothing to do with the number of atoms. It has to do with the energy levels of the electrons in the outer shell.

    As the electrons fall back from their excited state they emit a photon of light at a particular wavelenght, related to the energy drop. If you have a small drop then the wavelength will be large, ie red or infra-red light. If you have a large drop then the wavelength will be smaller, ie green, blue, violet.

    Don't forget that when hydrogen reacts it produces water was well 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O, so you'll have your triatomic molecule you want.

    The reason that corn brooms are used to detect flames is that the flame from a slow hydrogen leak is not very intense, made up almost exclusively with blue and violet photons. These are hard to see.

    Have a look at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.ht ml [gsu.edu] to see the spectra of hydrogen. It's got some visible lines in it.

    Here's a picture of a hydrogen flame, faint but visible. http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCESoft/CCA/CCA3/STIL LS/CLH/CLH/64JPG48/2.JPG [wisc.edu]

    Charles

  • Re:TFA wrong! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @12:16AM (#13256199)
    Pure water is not a conductor.

          Some of it is. Water, all on its own, does the following:

    H20 (-----------) H+ + OH-

          This is the reason why pure water has a pH of 7. This means that 10^7 hydrogen ions exist in one litre of the purest water. It can't be helped, it's a natural property of water.

          The dissociated part, since it has a charge, is a really god conductor of electricity. This is the part that turns to gas when you electrolyse. And as this happens, the principle of equilibrium assures that new ions are formed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 06, 2005 @12:21AM (#13256224)
    Do tell, where does the wasted energy go? Keeping in mind conservation of energy, of course.

    All heaters of a given wattage will dump the same amount of heat per unit time into a closed room- that's more or less the definition of watt. This device, if it takes 1000 watts of energy, is as efficient as any other 1000 watt heater.

    The only thing that "matters," so to speak, in comparing heaters is where the heat is dumped- if it's all dumped in one directed stream, it might warm the user up faster, and cause them to turn it off faster. But if you're heating an entire room, there's no difference.

  • by VoidWraith ( 797276 ) <void_wraithNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Saturday August 06, 2005 @12:24AM (#13256234)
    Amount of hydrogen? Yes. Amount of usable hydrogen? Definitely not. Usable hydrogen is H2. The amount of that in the atmosphere is pretty slim. To use it, it must be relatively pure, and to make relatively pure hydrogen, what do we do? Ta da! Burn fossil fuels! Like the OP said, the only other real options are nuclear power (which people don't like) and solar power (which is prohibitively expensive per yield)
  • Re:Net Energy Cost? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @12:38AM (#13256283) Journal
    Where else does the waste, lower efficiency go? It has to come from somewhere and go somewhere.

    Heat. Only it's heat where it isn't that useful to you... like as latent heat in the humidity you're generating and higher wavelengths (visible/near visible light).

    Yes, making heat can be 100% efficient, but it isn't always that way depending on how you want to use the heat. In this case, an electric IR heater would probably do a better job heating the space and a flourecent/LED lamp would do a MUCH better job creating light if those are your goals.
    =Smidge=
  • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @01:07AM (#13256381) Journal
    Tree burning is carbon neutral.
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @02:01AM (#13256548) Homepage
    Since when are current coal power generation losses (~60%) combined with electrolysis losses (~20%) equal to 78%? 1970? That's just current coal power plant averages and large extant electrolysis systems; new numbers are about 50% and 10%, respectively.

    Since when are the efficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells only 57%? 1980? New cells (which are what would be used, of course) are ~70% efficient (and should be able to get up to 85% if you utilize waste heat).

    Since when do gasoline IC engines lose 85% of the energy (15%) efficiency? 1950? Modern gasoline engines are 25-30% efficient (and diesel are 30-40%)

    In short, please explain your numbers.
  • by ArbitraryConstant ( 763964 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @02:05AM (#13256558) Homepage
    220 V * 60 A = 13.2 kw

    I don't know many places that need 13 kW of heating that don't already have it.
  • Wrong, wrong, wrong! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Federico2 ( 792815 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @04:15AM (#13256928)
    "The oxygen is then added for color and brightness, while the rest is released into the room."

    Oxygen added for color?? You must burn oxygen and hydrogen in the same ratio as they are in a water molecule: H2O

    Wich "rest" is relased in the room?
  • by zerus ( 108592 ) on Saturday August 06, 2005 @11:14AM (#13258008) Homepage
    As a person that designs power plants, I'm wondering what design you're working with where a coal plant reaches 50% efficiency. The best efficiency I've seen for most plants is getting close to 40% and that's with a nuclear plant (APWR) The best designed coal plant I've seen had nearly 37% efficiency but a capacity fact of around 60% (meaning they don't have it turned on all the time). Whenever you create your electricity by boiling water with a few regenerative or reheat cycles, your efficiency probably won't ever top the current efficiencies. You can get my numbers from any undergraduate engineering thermodynamics textbook.

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.

Working...